DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/321,331 is responsive to communications filed 11 March 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 20 February 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are pending.
In the previous Office action, the abstract was objected to as not disclosing the claimed invention. Claims 1–3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0170612 A1 (“Zhou”). Claims 4–7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Zhou in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0139446 A1 (“Kuroki”)1.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
In response to Applicant’s request for clarification objecting to the 17 September 2025 Information Disclosure Statement, as shown in the marked-up copy attached to the Non-Final Rejection, Non-Patent Literature Document 1 was deficient. Specifically, only a copy of the abstract, not the whole document, is present in the file.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s replacement abstract has been considered. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 5 as imputed to claim 1 as amended have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Zhou does not teach changing an image size during its transformation (Rem. 6–7), and that the Kuroki shrinkage ratio does not qualify as the claimed “ratio of a size to the decoded image before the rearranging to a size of the decoded image after the rearranging” (Rem. 7–8).
With respect to the allegations against Zhou alone, Kuroki, not Zhou, was used to reject claim 5. As such, the failure of Zhou to disclose this limitation additionally is not relevant. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect of the alleged patentable distinction between the claimed rearrangement using a size ratio and the Kuroki process of extracting DC components of 8x8 pixel blocks according to a fixed ratio, claim 1 as amended does not state how the ratio is used, let alone calculating a size ratio as a variable. Claim 1 only states a process of rearranging pixels by flipping, rotating, and a combination thereof, and using the before:after size ratio in this rearranging. The ratio is claimed as given or assumed, not calculated, and there is no claim limitation that precludes the Kuroki shrinking method from being within the scope of implementing a change in size using the ratio. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0170612 A1 (“Zhou”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0139446 A1 (“Kuroki”).
Zhou, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream for the image (Fig. 3, receiving input stream NAL);
obtaining a decoded image by decoding the bitstream (id., entropy decoding 212 and inverse transform and processing 304);
determining a mode for reconstructing the decoded image based on reconstruction-related information included in the bitstream (¶ 0024, control code); and
reconstructing the decoded image based on the mode (id., rotation and mirror 302 in decoding pipeline);
wherein the mode comprises a plurality of candidate modes including flipping, rotating[,] and a combination of the flipping and the rotating (Fig. 1, various rotate and mirror transforms),
wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises rearranging pixels in the decoded image (¶ 0029–31, Fig. 7; changing pixel addresses).
The claimed invention differs from Zhou in that the invention specifies performing the pixel rearrangement based on a size of the decoded image. Zhou does not teach this limitation. However, Kuroki, directed to image processing, and display, teaches with respect to claim 1:
wherein the rearranging is performed using a ratio of a size of the decoded image before the rearranging to a size of the decoded image after the rearranging (¶¶ 0097, 0132–39; rotating or mirroring image for display in specific display area, e.g., thumbnail, rotated thumbnail application rotates and reduces images to 1/8 size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the Zhou process to rotate or mirror images for specific display areas, in order to allow for operations such as automatic rotation of a mobile display for portrait or landscape mode (¶ 0041).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Kuroki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein whether to reconstruct the decoded images is determined based on the reconstruction-related information (Zhou ¶ 0026, reconstruction with or without the transform).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Kuroki teaches a method for processing an image, the method comprising:
encoding the image into a bitstream (Kuroki Fig. 13, image compressor 120b);
determining a mode for reconstructing a decoded image which is obtained by decoding the bitstream (Kuroki ¶ 0097, process mode; Zhou ¶ 0024, process code); and
encoding the mode based on reconstruction-related information into the bitstream (id.),
wherein the mode comprises a plurality of candidate modes including flipping, rotating[,] and a combination of the flipping and the rotating (Zhou Fig. 1, various rotate and mirror transforms),
wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises rearranging pixels in the decoded image (¶ 0029–31, Fig. 7; changing pixel addresses), and
wherein the rearranging is performed using a ratio of a size of the decoded image before the rearranging to a size of the decoded image after the rearranging (Kuroki ¶¶ 0097, 0132–39; rotating or mirroring image for display in specific display area, e.g., thumbnail, rotated thumbnail application rotates and reduces images to 1/8 size).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Kuroki teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising:
encoding the image into a bitstream (Kuroki Fig. 13, image compressor 120b);
determining a mode for reconstructing a decoded image which is obtained by decoding the bitstream (Kuroki ¶ 0097, process mode; Zhou ¶ 0024, process code); and
encoding the mode based on reconstruction-related information into the bitstream (id.); and
transmitting the bitstream (Kuroki ¶ 0007, mobile phone well known to transmit images captured by onboard digital camera),
wherein the mode comprises a plurality of candidate modes including flipping, rotating[,] and a combination of the flipping and the rotating (Zhou Fig. 1, various rotate and mirror transforms),
wherein the reconstructing the decoded image comprises rearranging pixels in the decoded image (¶ 0029–31, Fig. 7; changing pixel addresses), and
wherein the rearranging is performed using a ratio of a size of the decoded image before the rearranging to a size of the decoded image after the rearranging (Kuroki ¶¶ 0097, 0132–39; rotating or mirroring image for display in specific display area, e.g., thumbnail, rotated thumbnail application rotates and reduces images to 1/8 size).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 Applicant alleges the existence of a rejection of claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (11 March 2026 “REMARKS” (“Rem.”)) 5, but does not present any further response to this alleged rejection. No claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).